State sponsored crime

[Buffy]

Was everything the Allies did justified? Hitler was evil, but did that justify the fire-bombing of Dresden? By the end of the war, the Japanese were fighting a defensive war, did that justify nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki - or was there another reason the US bombed them, to show the international world that the US was an irresistable force? If that was the case, what's the moral implications for Uncle Sam?

"Justified" is a notion that changes very rapidly. Conventional wisdom before the war was that civilian targets were off-limits, and then Germany leveled Coventry and blitzed London, and it was politically very difficult *not* to retaliate in kind. Can you imagine Winston Churchill getting on the radio and blathering about "turning the other cheek" or trying to claim "we Brits are above this"? He would have sounded like Neville Chamberlin, who obviously wasn't very popular. The US and UK coordinated their bombing strategies, and while Dresden was a nighttime/US operation, it was obviously an extension of "Bomber" Harris' retaliatory bombing plans.

 

The Japanese may have been fighting a "defensive" war, arguably they were constantly losing ground from 1943 on, but their government had a policy designed to perpetuate their power right up to the very last surrender proposal to keep their military junta in power post-war. Moreover the campaign in the Pacific proved that they would kill every American they could and then commit suicide. The Germans surrendered in droves, the Japanese all fought to the death.

 

There are many self-serving reinterpretations of the plans and intentions associated with bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima, but there was *no* understanding of what a nuke was even among the US military: it was just a "really big bomb" and it was very efficient and powerful. At the time, it was easy for most people just to look at the millions who died in WWII and say that another 100k, especially if it may have avoided many millions more being killed in the invasion of Japan (and it should be noted that the surrender terms the Japanese were proposing were completely unacceptable: they were insisting on an even better deal than Bush I gave to Saddam in 1991), was spit in the ocean. It really wasn't until the late 50's and 60's that the realization that these nukes were bringing us to the edge of destruction of humanity started to sink in with the general public, and the military was already hesitant to use them. I also like to argue that if we hadn't been the first to demonstrate what nukes could do, with nuts like Stalin and Krushchev in power, the first demonstration would have been on LA or New York a few years later.

 

These days of course we have a much more enlightened attitude, and few people are arguing for nuking Pakistan for producing so many terrorists. We can make it through the political calculus that makes it clear that this isn't a good idea, even when they indiscriminantly kill thousands. Its been a long road, but trying to apply today's standards to history is always an exercise in futility.

Did 80,000 Japanese pay the price of the US impressing the world? Did it actually have anything to do with the war? Oh heck - I'm not planning on US-bashing, I'm asking an objective question here.

Only about as "objective" as the old "So are you still beating your wife?" question that's a favorite among PR consultants....

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Qfwfq]

Its been a long road, but trying to apply today's standards to history is always an exercise in futility.

Therefore, it was wrong for Boerseun to propose that we turn the discussion away from modern politics where tempers will fly, towards more historical situations to judge how easy a country/state can take a bite from the apple and fall from grace?

[Buffy]

Therefore, it was wrong for Boerseun to propose that we turn the discussion away from modern politics where tempers will fly, towards more historical situations to judge how easy a country/state can take a bite from the apple and fall from grace?

Only insofar as the point of the discussion still seems to be "the US is almost as evil as the Nazi's, nyah, nyah, nyah". On the otherhand, if we're going to simply say "in hindsight, Hiroshima was bad because lots of people died, so we shouldn't do that again if we can help it" then there's probably not going to be much discussion going on, because not many people disagree with that. The title of the discussion though is "State Sponsored Crime" so it still seems to me that the point here is to pin the label on the donkey, and what Boersun is arguing is "lets judge past events based on today's standards (and along the way completely ignore the inconvenient historical context) so we can pin some tail on some deserving arse..." At least that's how I interpreted it given his loaded questions...

 

Be sure to take all of this in the context that many around here consider me to be a raving looney liberal....

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[bumab]

Hey Buff! Welcome back, I haven't seen you around in a while.

 

The point of the thread was not to judge yesterdays actions by todays standards. It's actually a little more forward thinking, although nearly as speculative. What actions today will be judged as criminal in the future? Abortion? Pollution? The way debt is being handled with the 3rd world? And how are we to know, or perhaps, why should we even care?

[C1ay]

I am disappointed in US citizens here unwilling to discuss, objectively, the possibility that the US might not be as virginal in state sponsored crime as they would wish to believe. It seems that whenever a finger is pointed, the argument is countered with a "Yes, but what about country X, Y or Z", completely dodging the US's culpability in any matter raised.

 

Therefore, I propose that we turn the discussion away from modern politics where tempers will fly, towards more historical situations to judge how easy a country/state can take a bite from the apple and fall from grace.

That's not quite the issue at all is it. It was pointed out that no one can prove one way or the other if the Iraqi invasion was state sponsored crime or not. Can you prove it? Maybe it was. Some might even see it as a justifiable crime in the same way justifiable homicide is regarded which would still make it a crime.

 

As soon as someone brings up something about another country though like France and Russia's culpability in the oil-for-food program you want to dodge those questions and change the subject. Why? Any French and Russian assistance to Iraq in avoiding it's sanctions would be state sponsored crime wouldn't it? Is your thread about State Sponsored Crime or just US sponsored crime? I noticed you didn't bring up apartheid or SA's biological and chemical warfare program? You haven't brought up the genocide in Sudan or the Congo. Just what is the scope of the thread supposed to be?

[Buffy]

Thank you!

 

Forward interpretation is fair game. The discussion of current events may be a "hot" topic, but I think I'm showing that reinterpreting the past may not be much more fruitful: it is subject to just as much bias and is wide open to the "you can't find any proof of that because there's no one left alive to validate your "facts" (e.g. what Truman *really* was thinking)"

 

Don't let me stop you, guys! I'm just dropping in a possibly inconvenient warning about the debating techniques being used here....

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[C1ay]

Don't let me stop you, guys! I'm just dropping in a possibly inconvenient warning about the debating techniques being used here....

 

Cheers,

Buffy

Thanks. I actually used to be quite active on a political forum elsewhere and came here to get away from it. Now it's sprouting here when there are so many other political forums. :circle:

[IrishEyes]

Don't let me stop you, guys! I'm just dropping in a possibly inconvenient warning about the debating techniques being used here....

Not at all, Buffy. Your input is always appreciated! :circle:

I think that what C1ay, and many of the other Americans here, are trying (unsuccessfully??) to ask, is "Why are the 'crimes' that are brought up all US crimes? When another country's 'crimes' are mentioned, nobody wants to discuss those. Instead, the American's are accused of dodging questions. Is the US the only country in the minds of our non-US friends that are capable of 'crimes'?"

Because, even with the "we're not US bashing" statements, most of the posters are very unwilling to examine any other 'crimes' than ones they are positive the US has committed.

 

And I think it's fair to say that the majority of the American people in this forum are neither ignorant of, nor blind to, the things this government does. We don't all think that our every action is above questioning. However, it seems that country loyalty may be a little like family ties. I can say anything I want about my brother, and it's ok. But if the little punk down the street says something, not knowing my brother as well as I do, I'm more than ready to defend the little brat that always breaks my toys and calls me names. He's my blood, after all. I'm not blind to his faults, but I'm sure not about to let someone else broadcast them. I think it may be the same here. At least for me. Does this make sense?

We're not saying that we, our governement or our country, are in any way perfect. We acknowledge that we, as a country, have made mistakes, and as humans, will continue to do so. But to only look at our faults, while refusing to look at the mistakes of others, will only appear to be US-bashing, no matter how vehement your denials to the contrary.

[infamous]

Only insofar as the point of the discussion still seems to be "the US is almost as evil as the Nazi's, nyah, nyah, nyah".

 

Cheers,

Buffy

Spot on Buffy, it is true that the US has made mistakes in the past and will most likely make them in the future. No nation is without failure of one sort or another. However, to infer that the US can be compared to Nazi Germany is a stretch of major proportion.

 

As citizens of the US, are we being asked to apologize for actions taken over 50 years ago that our then leaders considered to be vital for the success of our survival? I think not.

 

We can argue untill the cows come home about weather these actions can be defined as "state sponsored crime". There is a saying "There is no substitute for victroy" and with vicrory comes the option to define ones methods. Others can choose to complain all they want, I choose to enjoy the benefits that victory has brought to this land of America. Those that spend all this time complaining should ask themselves if they would have preferred that Germany had won the war!

[infamous]

 

Is your thread about State Sponsored Crime or just US sponsored crime? I noticed you didn't bring up apartheid or SA's biological and chemical warfare program? You haven't brought up the genocide in Sudan or the Congo. Just what is the scope of the thread supposed to be?

Very good point C1ay, we are talking about "State sponsored Crime" and not just "US sponsored Crime".

[Boerseun]

Sheesh, people!

 

C1ay, I implore you to read my older posts in this specific thread. I have illustrated how we white South Africans had the wool pulled over our eyes during Apartheid, and what a destructive and immoral system it was, and I have asked the philosophical question of whether we are now, today, years later, culpable as ordinary citizens. I am fiercely loyal to my country, but objectively, I honestly don't know whether I'm guilty or not. I am willing to debate it, though.

 

Buffy - welcome back in the crypt! The idea of this thread was to speculate about the ease with which a country - any country - can make itself unknowingly guilty of a crime, which will only be seen as a crime later on, with the necessary hindsight. The fact that we ended up discussing the US's virtues or lack thereof, came because the Iraq war is a current issue, and handy to discuss at that. Most members here have access to the daily news. I appreciate your contribution regarding the nuking of Japan - the fact that it was only seen as 'really big bombs' kinda makes it understandable that it was used. So scratch that as a crime. The fact that they were used on civilians is another matter completely.

 

I suppose the international practice of filing away classified files for fifty to a hundred years might be seen as a crime - what's contained in such files that can be so damaging as to justify denying public access to it until such time as the role-players are long dead and pushing up daisies?

 

Infamous - I have never equated the US to the Nazis. What I was saying, was that Nazi crimes can or cannot be laid at a common German's doorstep. That's the crux of the matter. And if the US made itself guilty of any form of crime, and they deny common citizens access to the truth regarding these crimes, are US citizens culpable? Seeing as the citizens gave the current administration (in any democratic country, I might add) its mandate, and the government does something dispiccable, will the citizens share the blame through the mandate they gave? And if an elected government starts chipping away its citizens' freedoms based on a flaky premise, where does that leave us?

[Qfwfq]

Only insofar as the point of the discussion still seems to be "the US is almost as evil as the Nazi's, nyah, nyah, nyah".

Who said that? :hihi:

Surely you don't mean Boerseun when he posted:

I am disappointed in US citizens here unwilling to discuss, objectively, the possibility that the US might not be as virginal in state sponsored crime as they would wish to believe. It seems that whenever a finger is pointed, the argument is countered with a "Yes, but what about country X, Y or Z", completely dodging the US's culpability in any matter raised.

Nobody puts the blame on you, just because you're in California. I have always noticed your Limey lingo too. ;)

 

It's a fact that some US citizens argue exactly the way Boerseun describes, I saw it, well before here, when I was surviving the scorching political threads of The Atlantic Monthly, before it became subscribers-only, and every mod was blind in one eye and couldn't see out of the other. Back then, I also saw many other US posters arguing against those neocons, and getting called raving looney liberals!!! ;)

 

I don't put the blame for a country's crimes on each citizen of that country. I'm also against Blair's participation, which was quite against the opinion of a large slice of Brits. I'm also against the current gov't here in Italy, and the alternative isn't all that much better. I'm against the way the so-called West is controlling the globe. Was it here, or in the spawned thread about Iraq, I can't remember, I talked about Hussein and previously Pahlavi being supported by us, although US had the largest slice of the responsibility in the decades following WWII. Before that the Middle East was controlled by the British.

 

Talk about the misdeeds of Berlusconi, Mussolini, Andreotti, Craxi etc. and I'll probably agree.

[Chacmool]

Is your thread about State Sponsored Crime or just US sponsored crime? I noticed you didn't bring up apartheid or SA's biological and chemical warfare program? You haven't brought up the genocide in Sudan or the Congo. Just what is the scope of the thread supposed to be?

Read some of my previous posts. No one bothered to comment on current incidents of state-sponsored crimes in South Africa I had mentioned. It seems that posts that don't haul up the dead and buried past or don't involve the US don't get much attention. It's impossible to predict and direct people's thoughts and responses and, hence, the direction of a thread. Go with the flow.

[C1ay]

C1ay, I implore you to read my older posts in this specific thread. I have illustrated how we white South Africans had the wool pulled over our eyes during Apartheid, and what a destructive and immoral system it was, and I have asked the philosophical question of whether we are now, today, years later, culpable as ordinary citizens. I am fiercely loyal to my country, but objectively, I honestly don't know whether I'm guilty or not. I am willing to debate it, though.

 

You can only hold those that actively participated accountable. Looking to the past could anyone hold the average German citizen accountable for Hitler's actions? I think not. There are probably many of his soldiers that were just doing their job to keep their own butt alive. Some were actively engaged in the atrocities and they are culpable. Years later a number of the gas chamber operators have been tracked down and tried for their crimes. It reflects nothing on the average german citizen though.

 

Today the US is in Iraq over questionable circumstances. Was the intelligence flawed? Twisted? Fabricated? Who knows? There's nothing the average US citizen could do to prove it one way or the other. They have done what their system calls for though, they have elected representatives to represent them and those representatives authorized the action based on the information available to them. I might add, that the US congress had access to facets of information not available to the public to assist them in their decision. If it is shown someday that someone intentionally fabricated intelligence that person is culpable, not the people of his nation.

 

Today we know that there were french and german companies that aided Iraq in violating it's sanctions. How much did those governments know? If the governments were aware or participated it would qualify as state sponsored crime. That would not necessarily mean the citizens of those countries were culpable, only those individuals that participated as members of the government or as members of the private businesses that violated the sanctions.

 

The whole discussion reminds me of a similar circumstance we face in the US. Years ago there were citizens of the US that captured and enslaved african natives. They traded them like animals. Our own Constitution regarded them as taxable property. Today their descendants want reparations for the transgressions against their ancestors. How can anyone today hold anyone alive today accountable for the horrendous actions of yesteryear? They can't. I ask every individual I encounter that supports reparations the same question, "Should we locate Jesse James' great great grandchildren and imprison them for the banks he robbed"? They easily say no because they know you cannot hold them accountable for the actions of a man dead long ago.

 

In the years to come we may look back and hold apartheid or the Iraqi invasion as crimes but we could not hold the citizens culpable. We could only use the knowledge to enact new laws so that our children can learn from our mistakes.

[infamous]

Sheesh, people!

 

I am fiercely loyal to my country, but objectively, I honestly don't know whether I'm guilty or not. I am willing to debate it, though.

As your loyality to your country is great, so is mine. Nevertheless, if we citizens are quilty of anything it can only be misplaced trust in those we have elected. Likewise I myself do not condemn the majority of the German citizenry for the acts of a despot like Hitler. To extract such vengeance would be over the top in my opinion.

 

Buffy - welcome back in the crypt! I appreciate your contribution regarding the nuking of Japan - the fact that it was only seen as 'really big bombs' kinda makes it understandable that it was used. So scratch that as a crime. The fact that they were used on civilians is another matter completely.

One thing to remember here, the bombs were directed at the Japanese industrial complex that was supporting the war effort. Collateral damage was, at this point in history, very difficult to overcome. Not to memtion the fact that, the resulting devastation was not totally forseen.

 

 

 

Infamous - I have never equated the US to the Nazis. Seeing as the citizens gave the current administration (in any democratic country, I might add) its mandate, and the government does something dispiccable, will the citizens share the blame through the mandate they gave? ?

I doubt seriously that the vast percentage of the citizenry of my country, or yours, or for that matter, the average German civillian during the reign of the Nazi regime should be held responsible for, the acts of a leadership that has turned it's back on the humanity it was supposed to preserve.

[Qfwfq]

Good points, these past two posts, although I don't believe the generals and the politicians had been so unaware of the nuke being more than "just a big bomb", I was short of time yesterday to reply to Buffy's post. The physicists knew what they were doing and the Big Boys would have had their heads if they hadn't been fully informed. The politicians took their responsabilty and the decision was a political success because it won the war.

 

When the test explosions were done in the desert, the country's elite were there for the party and they were given the darkest sunglasses and strongest tan lotion they had ever seen. They knew the Natives had to be moved out of the area, not to return for years.

 

I read in the past about the choosing of the targets, it was all designed for the psychological effect, just like Dresden and other heavy city bombings, and with the bluff of making Japan believe they were able to quickly deliver even more such bombs.

[Buffy]

... I don't believe the generals and the politicians had been so unaware of the nuke being more than "just a big bomb", I was short of time yesterday to reply to Buffy's post. The physicists knew what they were doing and the Big Boys would have had their heads if they hadn't been fully informed.

You're projecting here: Oppenheimer knew and was worried. He got branded a communist sympathiser for his views. Teller knew and didn't care (there's your Dr. Strangelove), Groves was not smart enough to appreciate the implications, and he was the one who informed the chain of command, and no, he did not have his head roll. Curtis LeMay in fact went on to drive the gigantic nuclear arsenal and delivery system based on the "effectiveness" of nukes. Through the 50's there were experiments (like dusting San Francisco with radioactive material), because no one *really* knew how bad it was. It was much the same debate we're having now about global warming: a LOT of people have just enough ability to question the scientific findings to disbelieve the conclusions. So you can't say they didn't have that attitude...they did.

The politicians took their responsabilty and the decision was a political success because it won the war.

Nothing succeeds like success...

I read in the past about the choosing of the targets, it was all designed for the psychological effect, just like Dresden and other heavy city bombings, and with the bluff of making Japan believe they were able to quickly deliver even more such bombs.

I agree that civilians were targeted, but the genie was way out of the bottle by 1945, and the Axis *did* start it, both with Coventry/London Blitz as well as the Rape of Nanking, Bataan Death March and other well-known Japanese atrocities against civilians in combination with the very apparent lack of opposition to the Japanese military government among the populace made it very easy to justify--at least at the time.

 

Again, its dangerous to judge these things without looking not only at the context but also how people's attitudes were colored.

 

Cheers,

Buffy